Sox get Sale

[Kimmi]

Sure, hypothetically speaking it would be great to have a very good chance of making the playoffs for the next 10 years, but it's not realistic. Maintaining a winning team is only going to get more difficult. When you've got great young players like Mookie and Bogaerts and JBJ it's terrific, but how are you going to pay them all when they get past their control years? Even their later arbitration years are going to be expensive.

 

And if you finish high a few years in a row you get low draft picks.

 

The system is set up for parity. The Red Sox organization obviously feels they need to capitalize on their window of opportunity.

 

Well, when your young players get past their control years, you hope to have other young cost controlled players ready to take some spots on the team. That will allow you to either pay your own players free agent wages to keep them or to sign other free agents.

 

If you don't have a strong farm, you have to fill more spots with free agents, making it less likely to keep or get the guys you want.

[Kimmi]

You can't project 10 years without a lot of massive assumptions.

 

Of course there are no guarantees. However, a strong franchise begins with a strong farm. I think everyone agrees with that. We had that, and most analysts agreed that we were set up very well for the long term, meaning about 10 years.

[Kimmi]

Who says those are our only options? Only a few of you.

Some of us believe that the farm system still has a number of potentially good future mlb players. That, along with good draft/development, signing some homegrown core players long term and smart trades to bring back prospects over the next 3-4 years make some of us believe that we indeed WILL be a playoff contending team for another decade.

Realistically, none of us can predict what will happen over the next few years. Ill say this though. I hardly think its going to be as doom and gloom as some are talking.

 

As I responded to you in the other thread, I am willing to reserve final judgment on our long term status until that time comes.

 

In the meantime, I remain concerned. Dombrowski may replenish the farm. He may just as well deplete the farm further by trading for a player that he thinks we need.

[Kimmi]

And who's the best team I might ask? lol

 

So, I think it does because you have to look ahead to what your competition is. Competition we already faced first hand. Our 2016 playoff Starting Rotation just simply wasn't good enough and I had no reason to believe it would be good enough going forward. Especially when the team we would have to go through to get to the WS will theoretically get better by getting 2/5th's (2/3rds of their top 3) SPs back.

 

How does having arguably the 2nd best SP in baseball (top 5 at least I think anyway) not help your Play-off rotation?

 

I don't know who the best team will be come Opening Day (probably not us), but we will be one of the best. My point is, were already were one of the best. Yes, we improved our team and thereby improved our chances, but I don't think we improved them by as much as some people think, and it still guarantees nothing.

[Kimmi]

... that a good GM looks at our situation and sees a possibility to mortgage the future for a few years of maximum competitiveness? Yes, that is pretty inevitable. What's less inevitable was Henry signing off on the idea... but he did. DD was hired to do exactly what he is doing. IF you don't like what he is doing, talk to ownership about it

 

If we're lucky, the farm can be rebuilt from the draft over the next 3-4 years and by the time we need to restock the larder from the farm, the prospects are there. If we're less than lucky, at least we had 3-4 really good bites at the apple before things seriously start to go south, and there's likely to still be plenty of strength at the big league level to deal from and restock the larder if that's the direction they want to go.

 

Sorry, but that is not good GMing.

 

It is extremely short sighted.

[Kimmi]

I'll take my chance winning a series with Sale pitching twice. That has to make our chance of winning greater than whatever it was previously.

 

There's several ways to look at his addition for regular season. Our fifth starter spot was horrific last year. Inserting Sale in that spot makes us significantly better, not marginally better as some sports writer hack has claimed. Yeah I get it that we mortgaged our future years 6-10 for THAT priviledge. Even with payroll of $200M, we're destined to be doomed after 2020. At some point, I'll be dead and I won't have to worry about it.

 

[Bellhorn04]

Of course there are no guarantees. However, a strong franchise begins with a strong farm. I think everyone agrees with that. We had that, and most analysts agreed that we were set up very well for the long term, meaning about 10 years.

 

I have to vigorously dispute that any analyst would say we were set very well for the next 10 years. Take a look at our roster now and see what it might be in 10 years. All our Killer B's will even be past their primes in 10 years.

 

As far as I know Dombrowski has traded away 3 guys who had blue chip potential: Espinoza, Moncada and Kopech. I don't see how these 3 guys, even if they reach their potential ceilings, would make all the difference in our team over the next 10 years.

[Kimmi]

Price may of pitched his best post season game vs the O's in '14 (Gm 3). Gave up 2 ER but s***.. he went 8 Innings.

 

In '13 the Sox vs the Tigers, the Tiger's BP did them in, it wasn't their SP. Price of course wasn't on either team then, but the Tigers rotation was just as stacked. Can't have your BP give up 2 grand slams in two different games and expect to win the series.

 

The take away for me is in '13 their BP cost them and in '14 the other teams BP cost them (A.Miller).

 

Yeah, I guess the worst case scenario for us is that all of Price, Porcello, and Sale have lousy post seasons and nobody else steps up like ERod, Pom, or Wright, or Buch (if he's even on the team) or at least not enough. It could happen I suppose. I still don't think "The Playoffs are a crapshoot, why get Sale?" is a good argument for not getting Sale.

 

Price, Porcello, and Sale could all pitch lights out in the postseason, and we could still lose.

 

The argument that 'the playoffs are a crapshoot, therefore we don't need Sale' might be a weak argument if we weren't already strong contenders and if that deal didn't deplete our farm system even more than it had already been. You can't look at that trade as just a short term improvement. You have to weigh the short term improvement against the long term ramifications.

 

Is it worth it? If we win a World Series in the next two years, then yes. If we don't, then no. And that being said, it's quite possible that we would have won the World Series even if we didn't trade for Sale.

[Kimmi]

People make WAAAAAAAAY too big of a deal of post-season numbers like they are an indication of handling pressure when a lot of times they are nothing more than a handful of games spread out over several seasons. ..

 

Bingo! We have a winner!

[Kimmi]

I have to vigorously dispute that any analyst would say we were set very well for the next 10 years. Take a look at our roster now and see what it might be in 10 years. All our Killer B's will even be past their primes in 10 years.

 

As far as I know Dombrowski has traded away 3 guys who had blue chip potential: Espinoza, Moncada and Kopech. I don't see how these 3 guys, even if they reach their potential ceilings, would make all the difference in our team over the next 10 years.

 

Well, Matthew Kory said it. LOL

 

Maybe 10 years is a stretch, but the analysts did agree that we were set up well for the foreseeable future, ie, short term and long term.

[Kimmi]

Just for funsies, Fangraphs does have the Red Sox projected as the early AL favorites with 93 wins.

 

We are behind only the Dodgers and Cubs, with 95 wins each.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings

[Bellhorn04]

Well, Matthew Kory said it. LOL

 

Maybe 10 years is a stretch, but the analysts did agree that we were set up well for the foreseeable future, ie, short term and long term.

 

Did any of them give projected rosters for 2021 and beyond, taking into consideration all the provisions of the new CBA?

 

I'm joking, but these guys say a lot of things that turn out to be speculative nonsense.

[a700hitter]

"Speculative Nonsense" -- that sums it up very well.

[Spudboy]

It sure does.

 

There are very few "experts" who are right any of the time much less being spot on for 10 years.

 

I'll just watch my team and enjoy the talent that we have and be thankful that Ben is gone.

 

The putz.

[notin]

Price is 2-8 in 15 post season games over the past ten years with an ERA of ~5.50. He will never have enough post season appearances to qualify for having a large enough sample size to form a definitive opinion on his post-season performance. So what do you do? Keep running him out there as our ace, hoping for something good??

 

I said in the beginning that Price has a history of being a pitcher who can get you there but can't get you out the other side. Truth.

 

I have no problem with Price being our #2 or #3 pitcher in the post-season based on what he does in the regular season. However, I'm going to stand by what I said.. that I'm hoping that Chris Sale is something David Price isn't in the post season.

 

65 innings spread out over 10 years doesn't mean much either.

[notin]

Did any of them give projected rosters for 2021 and beyond, taking into consideration all the provisions of the new CBA?

 

I'm joking, but these guys say a lot of things that turn out to be speculative nonsense.

 

Since arriving, Dombrowski has traded awayan impressive list of prospects.

 

But let's not go overboard. In any BA Top 100 list, you have about 10 players give or take who go on to be star players. Another 30 who are serviceable starters, another 30 who are bench players, and 30 who never make MLB beyond maybe a September call up. Those of you from BDC might recognize this as Notin's First Law of Prospects or the 10-30-30-30 Rule.

 

By the logic of this rule, we probably traded away one star, three other starters, some bench players and AAAA fodder. At most, four players we might miss. If it is 4, we did give up a lot. Quite a bit to give up 24 years of starting MLB service time, especially if 6 of them are from a star player. We better win a title or two to justify it.

 

But it might be less than that...

[cp176]

Apology accepted.

 

Yours as well .

[cp176]

It sure does.

 

There are very few "experts" who are right any of the time much less being spot on for 10 years.

 

I'll just watch my team and enjoy the talent that we have and be thankful that Ben is gone.

 

The putz.

 

Hey, hey, hey, easy now. I bet he still looks good in a suit.

[Bellhorn04]

65 innings spread out over 10 years doesn't mean much either.

 

What is concerning, though, is that in his last 7 postseason games, 41.2 IP, he has given up 30 earned runs (6.48 ERA) and a .457 SLG. It's a remarkably horrible stretch of games however you look at it.

[moonslav59]

I have to vigorously dispute that any analyst would say we were set very well for the next 10 years. Take a look at our roster now and see what it might be in 10 years. All our Killer B's will even be past their primes in 10 years.

 

I wouldn't say "very well set", but with more top far away prospects than other teams certainly improves out odds.

 

While Betts, Bogey and JBJ would be past prime in 10 years (or gone), players like Espi would likely still have been under team control for years 4 to 10.

Moncada maybe 1-7 or 2-8.

Kopech 2-8 or 3-9

Having others like Basabe, Pennington, Diaz, Basabe, Asuaje and others would improve our odds as well.

 

 

[S5Dewey]

65 innings spread out over 10 years doesn't mean much either.

 

I agree that it doesn't mean much.. but it certainly does mean something.

[moonslav59]

I agree that it doesn't mean much.. but it certainly does mean something.

 

I agree that it does mean something...but it certainly doesn't mean much.

[S5Dewey]

I agree that it does mean something...but it certainly doesn't mean much.

 

Sure it means something. It means that if David Price (post season ERA 5.54 in 66 innings) is pitching against Max Scherzer (post season ERA 3.74 in 74 innings) the smart money is on Schezer in spite of the fact that Price's regular season ERA is better than Scherzer's.

 

When I was a young man I played on a team with some guys who were appreciably older than I was. I can remember falling behind early in a game and being told, "Don't worry. The cream will always rise to the top. And it did. Especially in the playoffs.

[moonslav59]

I said it meant something. Just not much.

[S5Dewey]

This is an impossible discussion to be having until we can quantify "much". How many post-season innings does a pitcher have before their post-season stats mean "much"?

 

I maintain that no pitcher will ever meet the normal qualifications for having an adequate sample size to make their stats mean "much". That means that statiscially every pitcher in every game is on nearly equal footing. You could start Fernando Abad against Max Scherzer and since neither of them have a large enough sample size to be significant one would have to say that based on statistics Abad vs. Scherzer is a nearly equal matchup. And that's ridiculous.

 

I fail to understand why some posters are defending Price's post-season numbers. Pressure does different things to different people. Since the only difference between the regular season and the post-season is that the post-season is...well.. post-season it's different. To say that an pitcher with an ERA of 3.21 in the regular season and an ERA >5.50 in the post-season is insignificant is sticking our heads in the sand.

 

I'm not hating on the guy. I think he's a great regular season pitcher, but he is what his numbers say he is - a great regular season pitcher who pitches poorly in the post-season. I like having the guy on the team, but I don't think we should run him out there in a post season game and expect him to give up only 2 runs in 6 innings until he proves he can do it.

[moonslav59]

This is an impossible discussion to be having until we can quantify "much". How many post-season innings does a pitcher have before their post-season stats mean "much"?

 

Way more than anybody has ever had.

 

I maintain that no pitcher will ever meet the normal qualifications for having an adequate sample size to make their stats mean "much".

 

Correct.

 

That means that statiscially every pitcher in every game is on nearly equal footing.

 

No, not at all.

 

You could start Fernando Abad against Max Scherzer and since neither of them have a large enough sample size to be significant one would have to say that based on statistics Abad vs. Scherzer is a nearly equal matchup. And that's ridiculous.

 

Exactly. Would you really think a guy who went 20-4 with a 1.50 ERA but had no playoff experience would have an equal chance of winning over a guy who went 4-20 with a 6.25 ERA with no playoff experience? Now, that would be ridiculous!

 

Regular season sample sizes still influence what you'd expect to happen in the playoffs. It doesn't always work that way, but baseball never works that way. A great regular season pitcher can always lose to a horrible starter at any given time. Once could find poor regular season sample sizes by great pitchers within their regular season careers. Look how Price sucked to start the year. That wasn't predictable based on his regular season history, but it happened.

 

One could cherry pick some games here and there spread out over several seasons that make every pitcher look bad. It could just be coincidence that Prices so many bad games have fallen during playoff games. Maybe not. Maybe the pressure does get to him more than others.

 

MLB is full of examples of players who sucked in their first 10-15 playoff games (like Papi) but then did great afterwards and vice versa. Players are streaky. It could be as simple as that. It could be more complicated. I don't think we'll ever know, bu I'll take Price in any playoff game over Abad or many other starters with similar playoff sample sizes with better results.

 

I fail to understand why some posters are defending Price's post-season numbers.

 

I'm not defending Price. The guy has sucked in just about every playoff start he's had. The odds are greatly against that as a random occurrence, but not impossible. I don't know why he has sucked so much. There could be other factors involved- small injuries, tough match-ups, poor fielding, facing starters who had freakishly good outings, as well as maybe just some games where the pressure did get to him or that he just plain had an off day.

 

My guess would be that he's probably had some bad luck combined with him just not being at his best. The reason for that is speculative, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he has sucked. Is he a gag? A choke? Maybe? Probably?

 

My position is we don't know, and even if we were able to determine that most of his poor performances were due to being a player that reacts poorly to higher pressure, it's still not a sure bet that it's a predictor of what will happen in the next pressure situation. Often times, players and teams that come up short for a few years, learn from their experiences and overcome the" jitters" or whatever it was that caused them to lose previously.

 

Pressure does different things to different people. Since the only difference between the regular season and the post-season is that the post-season is...well.. post-season it's different. To say that an pitcher with an ERA of 3.21 in the regular season and an ERA >5.50 in the post-season is insignificant is sticking our heads in the sand.

 

Certainly, I'd hesitate to bet on Price in his next playoff game, but with a gun pointed to my head, I'd bet on Price over Buch or Pom or Wright and many other SP'er.

 

I'm not hating on the guy. I think he's a great regular season pitcher, but he is what his numbers say he is - a great regular season pitcher who pitches poorly in the post-season. I like having the guy on the team, but I don't think we should run him out there in a post season game and expect him to give up only 2 runs in 6 innings until he proves he can do it.

 

Well, JBJ was what he was before he wasn't who he was, right?

 

Or, he was who he always was, but just had a tough stretch, a slump, a learning curve, or whatever it was, but he ended up pretty close to what his minor league numbers showed and what scouts thought he'd be.

 

Maybe Price will too; maybe not, but I'm not going to use a small sample size as the ONLY predictor of what is to come. .

[Eddy Ballgame]

This is an impossible discussion to be having until we can quantify "much". How many post-season innings does a pitcher have before their post-season stats mean "much"?

 

I maintain that no pitcher will ever meet the normal qualifications for having an adequate sample size to make their stats mean "much". That means that statiscially every pitcher in every game is on nearly equal footing. You could start Fernando Abad against Max Scherzer and since neither of them have a large enough sample size to be significant one would have to say that based on statistics Abad vs. Scherzer is a nearly equal matchup. And that's ridiculous.

 

I fail to understand why some posters are defending Price's post-season numbers. Pressure does different things to different people. Since the only difference between the regular season and the post-season is that the post-season is...well.. post-season it's different. To say that an pitcher with an ERA of 3.21 in the regular season and an ERA >5.50 in the post-season is insignificant is sticking our heads in the sand.

 

I'm not hating on the guy. I think he's a great regular season pitcher, but he is what his numbers say he is - a great regular season pitcher who pitches poorly in the post-season. I like having the guy on the team, but I don't think we should run him out there in a post season game and expect him to give up only 2 runs in 6 innings until he proves he can do it.

 

Look at his post season game logs inning by inning. He HAS given up "2 runs through 6" -and he's kept his team in a lot of playoff games. People manipulate his "stats" to make it look like he's been "batting practice" during the post season. It's simply not the case.

[moonslav59]

Look at his post season game logs inning by inning. He HAS given up "2 runs through 6" -and he's kept his team in a lot of playoff games. People manipulate his "stats" to make it look like he's been "batting practice" during the post season. It's simply not the case.

 

He has been "batting practiced" maybe only twice.

 

Here's how one could cherry pick his playoff games on the assumption that, if he was yanked at the right time (in hindsight) how well or poorly has he done:

 

His first 5 games were in relief: 6.2 IP 1 ER, 2 H, 4 BB, 8 K

 

Had his teams never made the playoffs again, how would people predict his next playoff game? Here are his playoff starts in the most positive way to view them:

IP ER

6.2 4

6.0 3

6.0 1 (3 runs allowed in 7th- 1 scored after he left)

7.0 7 vs BOS in 2013

8.0 2

6.1 4 (let up solo HR in 7th)

in relief of Dickey: 1.2 IP 0 (ended up with 3 ER in 3 IP)

6.0 0 (let up 5 ER in 7th)

6.1 2 (ended up with 6.2 IP 3 ER as next pitcher allowed his runner to score)

2.1 0 this year vs CLE, then GB single between SS & 3B, weak GB single to SS, LD single and 3 run HR. Later Barnes let up an inherited runner and Price ended up with 3.1 IP and 5 ER

 

9 GS'd and 4 games where he was at 6 IP with 2 or less ERs. One with 3 ER.

 

If you count his first 6.2 IP in relief with 1 ER, he looks better.

 

Edited December 18, 2016 by moonslav59

[raider_35_24]

 

 

[Kimmi]

Did any of them give projected rosters for 2021 and beyond, taking into consideration all the provisions of the new CBA?

 

I'm joking, but these guys say a lot of things that turn out to be speculative nonsense.[/Quote]

 

It may be speculative, but it is far from nonsense.

 

Anything that involves the future is speculative.

 

People are projecting how good this team should be this year. Is that nonsense? No one knows with certainty how we will finish.

 

Projecting the long term outlook of a team is fair and reasonable based on the knowledge that we have.